From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 22:33:20 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn Message-ID: References: <20210426170411.1789186-1-tobias@waldekranz.com> <20210426170411.1789186-7-tobias@waldekranz.com> <20210427101747.n3y6w6o7thl5cz3r@skbuf> <878s4uo8xc.fsf@waldekranz.com> <20210504152106.oppawchuruapg4sb@skbuf> <874kfintzh.fsf@waldekranz.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <874kfintzh.fsf@waldekranz.com> Subject: Re: [Bridge] [RFC net-next 6/9] net: dsa: Forward offloading List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Tobias Waldekranz Cc: f.fainelli@gmail.com, jiri@resnulli.us, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, vivien.didelot@gmail.com, idosch@idosch.org, nikolay@nvidia.com, roopa@nvidia.com, kuba@kernel.org, Vladimir Oltean , davem@davemloft.net > There is really no need to recompute the static parts of the tags on > each skb. It would mean moving some knowledge of the tagging format to > the driver. But that boundary is pretty artificial for > mv88e6xxx. tag_dsa has no use outside of mv88e6xxx, and mv88e6xxx does > not work with any other tagger. I suppose you could even move the whole > tagger to drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/? > > What do you think? > > Andrew? We have resisted this before. What information do you actually need to share between the tagger and the driver? Both tag_lan9303.c and tag_ocelot_8021q.c do reference their switch driver data structures, so some sharing is allowed. But please try to keep the surface areas down. Andrew